isn't git effectively a blockchain? Its got blocks, they are chained (or tree'd) (to some degree), it doesn't need verifiers or mining since it can have users signing their inputs, and that is the only thing to be cared about.
The point of a blockchain is that 1. There is a distributed consensus about the state of the blockchain (the one accepted by 51%+ of nodes) and 2. No one can alter information relating to your wallet without your keys. Git lacks either of these properties and these properties cannot be introduced without a centralized system like Github/Gitlab. Thus, Git is just a decentralized protocol, not a blockchain.
> No one can alter information relating to your wallet without your keys
Git has signing of commits etc. So the equivalent (no one can alter your presentation of the view of the code) can be enforced.
- - -
To focus on 1 specific concept of consensus, would be to also claim the very common idea of private blockchains is poorly named.
IMO no, this is one of those cases where a word means a lot more than just its component parts, much like how "television" means a lot more than just "anything where you do far-seeing."
The practical/effective distinction between what is promoted as "blockchain" and older stuff--like "a distributed database with cryptographic features"--involves:
1. Unrestricted global public membership, new nodes can be created by anyone at any time.
2. A global data structure that cannot have more than short-term conflicts or branches. (Hence a pruned "chain" instead of "tree".)
3. A cascade of other features all designed to stop someone from taking advantage of #1 and #2 to take over with an infinite army of sockpuppet nodes. (Proof of work, proof of stake, etc.)
In contrast, with git:
1. The default membership is "just me." Groups are ad-hoc as you find other people who you do (or don't) agree to work with and choose what to push/pull to one another.
2. Separate branches are extremely normal and can live indefinitely, and it's also normal to shift data from a conflicting branch or entirely rewrite subtrees.
3. There is no "majority rule" or "tiebreaker" logic, and thus no extra machinery to try to stop it.
Someone else mentioned consensus which is orthogonal. Git does not have that part.